NBA Off Topic Thread

[inkcil]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

A few things. I don't like that after an 82 game season we're putting 20 teams in the post-season (and yes I would call it that), including teams that are 14 games below .500. I'd you finish with the 7th-8th best record you should get those spots.

Also, it's a one time gimmick that had no reason to continue, but because of the viewership and social media interaction of course it kept going. And that's the same reason we're going to have this pointless mid-season tournament. They could add dozens of gimmicks that would result in more people talking about the product, but that doesn't mean they should do any of them. It ain't broken.

But there's more money to be made, so as someone running a business it's their job to try to make as much money (and entertainment) as possible. I'm not trying to be funny because I agree with your sentiment, but at some point it's just too much money out there for them to grab as the sport becomes more and more popular. Has less to do with basketball unfortunately as it does with business.

All over the business world there were a lot of things that was like "ok I see they had to do this trying to make up for money lost during the pre-vaccine days of the pandemic." But then they kept it that way because of the cash.

[ojandpizza]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

In a vacuum, sure, you could be talking about once a half or two times a game (or more, in a number of instances). But we should know that it goes a lot deeper than that. All buckets aren't equal, and a momentum-building open floor hammer dunk in front of the home court to kick-start an 8-0 run resulting in a time-out and frazzled opponents is unquestionably different from getting take-fouled, slowing the game, and maybe converting a cute little layup in the half-court.

Part of my issue is also that I don’t believe this described circumstance is even remotely close to being all of, or the majority of, take fouls.. there was one even committed last night (stupidly) when the defense had numbers. Most plays that would kill a sure fire break away dunk would be a clear path foul… that we already have a rule for. In most instances a take foul has defenders, it stops a break that more than likely would end in a shooting foul rather than some insane open court dunk.

I don't find this conjecture to be a certainty.

There's some things in NBA basketball that teams will milk only until they have a reason not to.

A team will never have a reason to not commit a foul on a play that might lead to an easy basket or shooting foul. If that was the case teams wouldn’t foul players in the half court to keep them from getting a dunk at the rim. Basically identical to this same scenario but because this happens at half-court it’s bad.

[ojandpizza]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

.

a penalty for not playing the game by the rules

Being able to use your fouls is playing by rules though. These examples are a foul, on the ball, not in a clear path situation, not from behind, they are breaking no rule of basketball by fouling a player with the ball.

. But then the spread of the intentional foul became a bit more insidious and cumbersome, with game-killing Hack-a-Shaqs and fast break killing Take Fouls.

I don’t find the two of these even remotely comparable. Hack-a-Shaq is an intentional foul away from the ball. It differs from a foul on the ball and that’s why it has the ability to be separated like that. This is a foul that is the same exact foul that happens in the half court and would be allowed. It’s a foul that if a player swiped at the arm is fine, but at the shoulder it isn’t.

This is like telling Steph he can’t shoot from 30+ feet anymore unless it’s at the buzzer because he’s intentionally shooting before the defense can get to him. Even if it’s the same exact shot if he were closer to the line. This same exact foul can happen, so long as it doesn’t possibly kill a break? Makes no sense to me.

[VDusen04]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

Being able to use your fouls is playing by rules though. These examples are a foul, on the ball, not in a clear path situation, not from behind, they are breaking no rule of basketball by fouling a player with the ball.

A foul is literally an infraction. There's really nothing in the rules stating that breaking the rules is a strategic part of playing by the rules. We know that doesn't make much sense.

Of course, I have no desire to be an absolutist on this front. I get there's some wiggle room for winks and nods for certain plays. If we're hellbent on retaining the end-of-game fouls, fine, I'll concede them in spite of their illogic if it makes everyone happy. But I don't really think the Take Fouls are making anyone happy.

If you ask me as a player:

1. Would you prefer getting grabbed in the open floor as long as you can do it to the other team, too?

or

2. Would you prefer your defenders not grabbing you knowing you won't be able to grab them either?

I'm picking choice number two every day of the week. I have a difficult time imagining many players really preferring the first option ("Yes, please, more grabbing, less effort, less skills, that'd be great.")

And if you were to ask me as a fan:

1. Would you prefer watching a game where fast breaks can be broken up with zero-effort, intentional fouls?

or

2. Would you prefer watching a game where fast breaks are allowed to proceed without the ability to commit intentional fouls, where an unnecessary stoppage is prevented and the actual basketball skills of each team will decide whether that fast break is successful?

Again, I feel as though we'd be hard pressed to find anyone watching basketball at any level who's going to take a principled stand for preserving the intentional fast break foul for the sake of purposely stopping games with zero-effort grabs and hugs.

This is like telling Steph he can’t shoot from 30+ feet anymore unless it’s at the buzzer because he’s intentionally shooting before the defense can get to him. Even if it’s the same exact shot if he were closer to the line. This same exact foul can happen, so long as it doesn’t possibly kill a break? Makes no sense to me.

With much respect, you lost me here. I imagine you're saying if one type of foul is okay then why aren't they all okay.

Putting aside that shooting a basketball is literally a skill of the game, whereas fouling is the complete antithesis of skill (in fact, it's a punishment for not sticking to the proper skills of the game), I am in support of eliminating obvious and easily curbable loopholes when available, even if it's not a blanket fix for all loopholes.

I really think it can all be summed up like this: I think think the Take Foul sucks. I don't think anyone will miss it (even when nostalgia for this era hits years from now). Because of that, I have zero problems with getting rid of it.

[jfsolo]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

For a lot of folks if players aren't being intentionally injured, then "Just Win Baby" applies, i.e. whatever methods the rule of law of the game allows is fine and should be used. For others the spirit of the game matters as much as winning so there will always be conflict between those two philosophies, and leagues are always having to decide when the former is being too disruptive to the game. Not everyone will agree about changes that are made that keep the latter from being subverted too often, so here we are.

[MrDubya]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

A few things. I don't like that after an 82 game season we're putting 20 teams in the post-season (and yes I would call it that), including teams that are 14 games below .500. I'd you finish with the 7th-8th best record you should get those spots.

Also, it's a one time gimmick that had no reason to continue, but because of the viewership and social media interaction of course it kept going. And that's the same reason we're going to have this pointless mid-season tournament. They could add dozens of gimmicks that would result in more people talking about the product, but that doesn't mean they should do any of them. It ain't broken.

I have to agree. While we got some memorable moments, I much preferred the traditional way. 8 teams from each conference get in. 9th seeds and lower are eliminated from contention. I get why they're doing it, but me personally, I could do without the play-in gimmicks.

[ProfessaPackMan]

NBA Off Topic Thread

I just think y’all be dramatic with it and act like the game is being ruined every time something that doesn’t “need” to be changed is changed.

Even the whole “legitimate basketball” thing came across elitist/holier than thou because that’s subjective anyway.

This wasn’t like Harden or others out here gaming the system by baiting Officials into calls where that is legitimately bad. This is more “I’m not entertained by this so get it out of MY game before it ruins it!”. And I understand it because it is a sport and ultimately y’all want to be sports entertained.

And it’s ok to admit that because that’s exactly what it is. Doesn’t mean having that thought it bad or anything.

[VDusen04]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

“I’m not entertained by this so get it out of MY game before it ruins it!”. And I understand it because it is a sport and ultimately y’all want to be sports entertained.

And it’s ok to admit that because that’s exactly what it is. Doesn’t mean having that thought it bad or anything.

That sounds pretty dramatic, to be honest.

It's pretty basic, really. The league's considering making a small change many view to be positive and we applaud it.

[Gramps91]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

I don’t even like the play-in games for March Madness. Just start with 64 teams


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[The 24th Letter]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

I just think y’all be dramatic with it and act like the game is being ruined every time something that doesn’t “need” to be changed is changed.

Even the whole “legitimate basketball” thing came across elitist/holier than thou because that’s subjective anyway.

This wasn’t like Harden or others out here gaming the system by baiting Officials into calls where that is legitimately bad. This is more “I’m not entertained by this so get it out of MY game before it ruins it!”. And I understand it because it is a sport and ultimately y’all want to be sports entertained.

And it’s ok to admit that because that’s exactly what it is. Doesn’t mean having that thought it bad or anything.

Isn’t the above essentially your thoughts on the play in?

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

I don’t even like the play-in games for March Madness. Just start with 64 teams


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

The play-in with college feels grosser to me because the way it used to work, if one of those small schools won their conference, they got a chance to play against the big boys. Then the NCAA decided they just wanted more big name schools so they basically made the small school conference winners play each other for a spot to reserve more space for the big schools.

It's definitely pretty similar to what the NBA has done overall, but I like the NBA play-in and strongly dislike the NCAA play-in.

Edit: Then again, you could also argue that the conference tournaments are essentially the same as the play-in tournament in the NBA too, as you can have a small school go undefeated in the regular season and then still miss the NCAA tournament because they lost in their conference tournament to a random team that went on a heater.

[Gramps91]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

The play-in with college feels grosser to me because the way it used to work, if one of those small schools won their conference, they got a chance to play against the big boys. Then the NCAA decided they just wanted more big name schools so they basically made the small school conference winners play each other for a spot to reserve more space for the big schools.

It's definitely pretty similar to what the NBA has done overall, but I like the NBA play-in and strongly dislike the NCAA play-in.

Edit: Then again, you could also argue that the conference tournaments are essentially the same as the play-in tournament in the NBA too, as you can have a small school go undefeated in the regular season and then still miss the NCAA tournament because they lost in their conference tournament to a random team that went on a heater.

That was always my argument. If you are a small school you really want to win that conference tournament. If you don't win the conference tournament then, tough cookie.

I can understand the incentive for the play-in games for NBA but...82 games is just too many. I don't even watch the regular season at all anymore because I feel, most of the games, players aren't giving full effort. Playoffs are more competitive so I can watch it. I hate no-defense basketball.

I'm going off topic now but I'd prefer like a 58 game season. Playoffs are 5-5-7-7. 10 minute quarters. Sometimes, less is more.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

That was always my argument. If you are a small school you really want to win that conference tournament. If you don't win the conference tournament then, tough cookie.

I can understand the incentive for the play-in games for NBA but...82 games is just too many. I don't even watch the regular season at all anymore because I feel, most of the games, players aren't giving full effort. Playoffs are more competitive so I can watch it. I hate no-defense basketball.

I'm going off topic now but I'd prefer like a 58 game season. Playoffs are 5-5-7-7. 10 minute quarters. Sometimes, less is more.

I would love it if healthy players didn’t just take games off but it seems kinda unfathomable the league will ever go for shortening the season. Im also not entirely sure players wouldn’t still just rest if it was 50+ games instead of 82. I’m sure there’s a number somewhere that would make it too risky to miss games but it’s probably not a number the NBA is willing to cut it to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gramps91]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

I would love it if healthy players didn’t just take games off but it seems kinda unfathomable the league will ever go for shortening the season. Im also not entirely sure players wouldn’t still just rest if it was 50+ games instead of 82. I’m sure there’s a number somewhere that would make it too risky to miss games but it’s probably not a number the NBA is willing to cut it to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More games probably means more money for the NBA too, or so I would think. It probably won't ever happen but I still think it'd be better.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NBA Off Topic Thread

Isn’t the above essentially your thoughts on the play in?

Always hated the play-in and my past posts on this subject will show that from the time it was announced.

And those thoughts will transfer over to the pointless midseason tournament that will mean nothing in the grand scheme other than money, which nobody here will care about because.

Even with this rule change, I’m not even arguing against them removing it. I think me and OJ are on the same page as far as saying this is not some widespread issue that’s ruining the game or somehow delegitimizing it(or certain parts of the game).